It is a bit of a stretch, until you really think about how scary it is that meat contains the same kind of cancer-loving steroids that athletes take.

Not a terribly scientific statement here, but when we see healthy athletes come down with these terrible diseases (cancer, pneumonia, etc) one can't help but wonder if steroids play a part.

That's not to say that any athlete who gets cancer or anything else is suspect - exercise alone is not a catch all prevention for cancer or diseases, but steroids do lower immune function in a big way.

Finding it in meat is downright scary. Cancer city.

On a happier note, nice bikinis! :)

Posted by: Maya, Master's candidate, wildlife biology | December 14, 2007 04:55 PM

Is that Christina Cho? That girl kicks ass! She made me vegan!

Posted by: LA Vegan | December 14, 2007 06:32 PM

In a sense, this is degrading to women. BUT I love that anyone would go to that measure to stand up for what they believe in.

Posted by: kristen | December 14, 2007 08:52 PM

Alright seriously Guys, the naked women thing has REALLY got to stop... This is insane! I mean, how slow in the head are the people in your marketing department? you have to strip someone off every damn time you want to say something about fur/meat etc.

I'm a proud vegetarian, and will be for the rest of my life, but if this shit doesn't stop soon, I will NEVER ever come back to this site again... Have some goddamn decency, you are not creating conversation about animal rights! you are creating conversation about how damn degrading you people are to women! Listen to the advise you would give someone hurting animals and stop doing this crap!

Peace.

Posted by: Hitchjr | December 15, 2007 12:43 AM

Yeah, but once the drug is introduced through the animal, it has been changed to a different composition, and a small threat to us (which wont kill you)

Posted by: Caboose | December 15, 2007 10:15 AM

It's so good to try to make the people go veg, but sometimes I feel so depress that the people doesn't care and eat meat. Worldvision is making the people to donate animals for consumption to the poor kids, like this when the people is going to be veg.

Posted by: liliana | December 15, 2007 10:33 AM

This is why I am compelled to harvest/grow my own meat. Also, this is why I am compelled to grow many of my own vegetables. You can't know what goes into processed foods, including vegetables. If all I could get was grocery store beef, I probably wouldn't eat very much of it. Many meats are harmful in quantity, but game meats and free range meats are quite healthy and in some opinions essential to thrive. If you eat too much of any one thing, bad things happen. If you feed your livestock a non varied diet, they will be less healthy and you will be forced to give them nasty drugs et hormones to keep them thriving. There are things omnivores can do and be their healthiest without foresaking meat all together.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 15, 2007 11:05 AM

hey kristen,
PETA got also lovely men posing for the animals - look at peta asia pacific right now - they got a real male beauty!

Posted by: cappuccino | December 15, 2007 04:25 PM

I was always tired and I would always get stomache aches. I became a vegan a couple of years ago and I have so much energy and I can't explaine the GREAT difference it has made in my life!!! VEGAN 4 LIFE!!!

Posted by: Llauren | December 15, 2007 11:45 PM

I would love to make love to a head of lettuce ... is it wrong if it feels so right?

Posted by: Lucas | December 16, 2007 12:59 AM

Another point ... what if the meat comes from organic farmers? Are they still evil? Are we going to damn anyone who raises animals for food - even if they are raised humanely and killed humanely without the use of growth hormones and the like?

That seems very narrow minded -

anyone - please! Try and change my mind.

Posted by: Lucas | December 16, 2007 01:32 AM

Kristen-

Degrading to women!?! Are THEY!?! Aren't the ones being slaughtered for their skin, meat, etc being degrated?!? Reavualute your morals/ethics/standards before you pass judgement!

Posted by: Violet | December 16, 2007 01:37 AM

Degrading? They both are beautiful! I met Christina Cho and she is the best!!!! Very dedicated and a warm person. Class act.

Posted by: Ana | December 16, 2007 01:21 PM

This is what i'm talking about people what does the Barry Bonds Trial have to do with what peta stands for!!!??? I see you guys messing with more celebs feeding off of them then helping animals. I love you guys when it comes to helping animals. Lately it seems like you are trying just trying to get some pub.. Peta is about animals rights not messing with celebs.

Posted by: Ronald Hopkins | December 17, 2007 07:24 AM

Wow. i love this. I have got to give credit to these girls. and thanks to peta for standing up for animals.

Posted by: kristina | December 17, 2007 10:08 AM

Caboose,

The meat and dairy hormones cycled through animals before human consumption may (?) not kill you, but it is well documented that they promote an earlier onset of puberty or menarche. This apparently increases one's risk of breast or prostate cancer later in life.

"In 1950 the average Japanese consumed 5.5 pounds of milk and dairy... By 1975 that number had increased to 117.4 pounds. During that 25 year period, the average 12-year-old girl gained 19 pounds, grew 4 1/2 inches, and the average age of menarche dropped from 15.2 years to 12.2 years."

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 17, 2007 11:59 AM

Let's not forget the study that was verified years ago about the anti-biotics given to animals, which lessens the effectiveness of anti-biotics when it is necessary for human animals to take abx -that is, for those who eat meat. No matter how anyone wants to defend and justify their stance on eating animals, all defenses are over-powered since it is unhealthy and basically unjustifiable to eat meat, especially when there are healthy foods to eat. Eating meat in moderation doesn't hold up since it takes only ONE time to contract mad cow disease, or bird flu virus, or a severe dysfunction from the mercury in fish.

Posted by: Ariel | December 17, 2007 02:22 PM

Ariel and Mike

Dont forget: DNA.

Posted by: Caboose | December 17, 2007 03:55 PM

Lettuce never looked so good.
I prefer the red meat any way. Oh I mean the girl in the picture....

Posted by: Jim Miller | December 17, 2007 04:13 PM

ariel, abx efficiency in that case would be lessened for all, not just those that eat meat. Its the germs that can become resistant and spread indiscriminantly.

With mad cow disease, I'm sure it did take only one time to eat infected beef, and that will be particularly hard to do nowadays.

There is no evidence to suggest that bird flu is transmitted by eating fowl, although risk would exist if you prefer to eat it raw. Biggest risk is with feaces.

I suppose it could be possible to get a severe dose of mercury from one serving. Mercury is a cumulative product in the body, and is only expelled in small quantities. it builds up over a period of time. The biggest risk is during pregnancy when the babies brain is forming. Limit predatory fish(shark, tuna) intake then.

Posted by: rojo | December 17, 2007 06:55 PM

Jim

Which one?

Posted by: Caboose | December 17, 2007 07:36 PM

Ariel,
More people will die in the United states this year from diseases they contracted from contaminated vegetable or soy foods than will die from the two diseases you cite in five years. More people will die from diseases they contract from cat bites than the two diseases you cite. I have treated in the hospital twenty or thirty people with P. multocida infection from cat bites. Mad cow disease? I'm no cow. It is not inherently unhealthy to eat meat.

Mike,
Age of menarche is very dependant on body fat, an evolutionary advantage. In 1950 Japan was a near starving nation. Early menarche isn't harmful except for a very slight increased risk of breast ca. As long as those girls weren't obese (and they weren't on average), what's the issue? Menarche at age 15 or 16 could be an indicator of malnutrition. A height increase of 4.5 inches essentially justifies a 20# weight gain. I miss your point.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 17, 2007 08:38 PM

I have sad news for you guys, these women that you trot out in skimpy outfits? The guys who take these fake sandwiches from them? They're still only interested in meat, the difference is the meat they want is the women you are turning into objects.

Posted by: ONS-Torlan | December 18, 2007 12:05 AM

It's not degrading. These women know that they're doing.

Posted by: K | December 18, 2007 12:46 AM

I think it would be wise to make note that this poster who calls himself "Christopher Cochrane MD" is always posting anti-PETA and anti-animal rights posts here. It seems like he is trying to present some sort of validity about his judgements by making us sure that we know he is a "doctor." I have an education in Psychology, and I am sure many other PETA members are well-educated, so if he thinks he's an authority by letting us know he is a doctor, then try again. We're not stupid, nor in need of enlightenment. Also, this "doctor" frequently averts discussions away from the topic at hand and then attacks vegetarians and vegans, claiming that we have "hatred" in us something-or-other, and this is something that in psychology is called Gaslighting. I have read many of his replies here, and have come to the conclusion that others need to be aware of his presence here and stop him from casting judgements on us.

Posted by: Terriers Rule | December 18, 2007 06:05 AM

"Kill humanely"...this is a concept I will NEVER understand...
Since when killing an animal to eat it, when there are so many options out there is "humane"???
Please tell me how can you put those two words together and make sense...
Killing and humane...hmmm...weird concept...
So...can we humanely kill humans? And believe me, humans are cruel, the only species that kill for pleasure...so we should be able to kill them...if we do it "humanely"...

Posted by: Teresa | December 18, 2007 08:15 AM

Contaminated soy and veggies are mainly from E. coli, which is SURPRISE! from factory farming...

Posted by: Michele | December 18, 2007 10:45 AM

Terriersrule,
I am not anti animal rights, I simply present issues from a different point of view, but I would like to point out that if you are interested in animal rights, you should put your best arguments forward, rather than make marginal comments about me. Who I am is irrelevant to animal rights. I do not wish to talk about me, rather animal issues, if you please. Did you have an opinion on animal issues or just an opinion about me, because I do know this is not a blog about one person.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 18, 2007 11:02 AM

hey cocky: now we know it: the people you are treating from catbites are dying - you are loosing your skills because of too much blogging on-here! ha!

Posted by: candy | December 18, 2007 12:40 PM

Christopher,

As you pointed out, the height and weight gains negate each other (that wasn't my point). So the age of earlier menarche had to have another cause, and increased dairy consumption was implicated.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 18, 2007 01:17 PM

Teresa -

Well, if you look at it in the way, slitting someone's throat and letting them bleed to death- that's not too humane.

Injecting them with something that will essentially mimic them going to sleep and kill them at the same time, I could see that as humane.

And I'm sure there are animals out there who might like to kill for pleasure, you never know. Just something to think about I say.

Posted by: Kristina | December 18, 2007 01:33 PM

To "Terriers Rule",

Hello. I do think that Chris Cochran made some sarcastic remarks early on (I'm guilty of that too) but I really do think he has been respectful overall.

If we don't welcome dissenters to this forum, we are making more animals suffer. How do you think we open people's minds? By welcoming dissenters, of course, and hoping that they will read something on here which will cause them to treat animals better.

Sometime, somewhere, some animal may benefit from what people have learned here. Isn't that the most important thing?

If someone speaks disrespectfully, treat them with kindness and show them that we can have a lively, even controversial debate without ugly name calling, and they will always change their tune.

Possibly even spare some animal lives. Isn't that the point?

Peace! And yes, Terriers do rule! ;)

Posted by: Maya, Master's candidate, wildlife biology | December 18, 2007 01:37 PM

Rojo,

Eating BSE-infected beef would be an extreme rarity in some countries like Japan and England that test all slaughtered meat for BSE, but the US has scaled backed their testing to less than 1 per cent of animals. They seem to have adopted a "don't look, don't find" policy.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 18, 2007 03:20 PM

Hello Maya:

I agree with you about educating others about animals rights on this blog. But cochran is neither respectful nor is he trying to learn anything. It is trying to prove that he is a "classier" hunter/killer than others and he is very snide in his remarks to animal advocates including me. It has written sarcastically and disrespectfully to me that I should drink Sanka (I don't drink coffee), says I need laughter in my life and has ridiculed my position as a vegan animal advocate. It has done the same to many other animal advocates as well and frankly it behooves him , since it claims to be educated to desist with such infantile responses. It is afraid of going the way of Mars so it is writing a little less caustic than before. It's only goal is to prove that it is a refined hunter/killer with its bows and not vulgar like the other hunter/killers who are at least more forthright in their hatred of animals. It constantly reminds us who it is going out to hunt/kill and goes into great detail as to where and which species. That is not respectful but it is brutal.

Stay well :) !

Terriers Rule

I like your input and yes, you write intelligently. Many animal advocates are highly educated but don't resort to arrogance. I have post-graduate degrees because I chose to accomplish this. I do not need to bang my degrees over others' heads. Please keep your comments coming on this blog. :)

Posted by: Ana | December 18, 2007 03:57 PM

Michele

But isnt that where most vegan products come from?

Posted by: Caboose | December 18, 2007 05:43 PM

Terriers Rule,
You are a miracle on this blog site!
"CCMD" has been commenting ANTI for MONTHS on this blog site practically EVERY day, except when he tells us -gets his thrill- that he had been away "harvesting" animals. He admitted right from the beginning that he is against animal activists, and included sarcastic remarks (very first blog), yet wanted to have a " civilized discussion" about HIS views (ONLY!), and authoritatively threw his (unverified) title at us, (and still continues to try to debunk the VERIFIED/DOCUMENTED information that PeTA presents from UNbiased, credible sources.*) Several a/r/a's immediately caught on to his act and let him know it, yet a couple of us TRIED to have a civilized discussion with him, only to be responeded to with more of his sarcasm, arrogance, and/or unproven claims. (I suppose he thinks his alledged title would impress us and change our beliefs)

. As time went on, he became increasingly VERY self-focused, sarcastic, arrogant, you name it! Naturally we weren't going to sit back and take it like a bunch of pansies, so we firmly challenged him -only to be met with his taunting, etc. Then we tried to ignore him, and that's when he started provoking activists with nasty his comments for no reason at all other than he wasn't getting any attention. Even in his seemingly civilized comments, he throws in a few digs at us.
Anyway, you have him down pat, so please don't allow anyone to let you think otherwise since what I am writing here is in total agreement with your TRUE observations and awareness (amazingly similar to comments I had written in the past), which are SOLIDLY based on our TRUE ad nauseum experiences with him, and the consensus of REAL a/r's activists'! And you are SO right: there are a LOT of intelligent/highly educated a/r/a's on this blog site who don't have a need to profoundly advertise their positions or titles.
I took notice in his response to you that he's playing one of his typical acts: "wolf in sheep's clothng" - with his false nonsense that is to the contrary!
*I went into length with my response due to ccmd's own clearly stated anti and unproven comments, his MANY attempts at debunking (fruitlessly), and using his alleged title - all for the purpose of DESPERATELY TRYING to negate animal rights'
(when he reads this, he might try a new act, but he KNOWS what I have written is TRUE because the archives are on here to prove it)
Terriers

Posted by: Ariel | December 18, 2007 07:36 PM

Terriers Rule,
I hope -and I'm sure MANY others do too- that you contribute as often as possible on this blog site!
Your education is priceless!...as always, for the sake of the animals AND the animal rights' movement!

Posted by: Ariel | December 18, 2007 07:45 PM

I just wanted to add my vote that I agree that these campaigns involving women(mostly) in bikinis/naked are getting old. I remarked on this subject once before on a post about another campaign, that I think it is distracting from the real message.

Isn't the subject of animal rights and animal welfare strong enough not to involve stimuli of t & a? It almost brings the seriousness of the issues down to a light hearted/party level.

While I am happy for any event that addresses the issues of animal rights, I think some new tactics need to be implemented. Do you think that people won't listen to smart attractive women or men fully clothed?

Just wanted to add my opinion. I guess when I am thinking about the plight of animals and the many horrors they endure, the first thing I think of about how to raise awareness is not t & a. Thanks.

p.s. maybe there could be a topic posted asking for new ideas for campaigns, we could all brainstorm together

Posted by: susan | December 18, 2007 08:45 PM

mike, agreed, but the number of past(2) and likely future cases in the US is low. Compared to thousands in the UK.

http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm

Posted by: rojo | December 18, 2007 09:08 PM

candy,
FYI, 95% of cat bites (40% of dog bites) become infected with an unusual microbe that doesn't respond to some of the more common antibiotics. Pasturella multocida infections in the elderly or immunosuppressed can be deadly despite prompt medical attention. I don't think it is fair of you to demean those who have suffered this disease, some of which have even died. I personally have never lost a patient to this infection, but I have treated fifty or so cases in the hospital.

Mike,
Age of menarche has decreased throughout the entire developed nations in the time you cited due mostly to increased body fat. Increased body fat is due to increased calories. I contend that those increased calories were likely due to the more readily available processed foods (plant and animal). Adipose (fatty) tissue results in increased estrogen production. This contributes to early menarche, and breast and uterine cancer in obese women. In this case, high levels of soy may contribute early menarche
On another note, prion disease is extremely rare in all countries including the US. There are lots of reasons not to eat too much beef, but fear of prions is not one of them. You have sited a study from Yale? that contended that BSE is missed frequently by mistaking it for Alzheimer's. I can find this study quoted off hand throughout the animal rights web sites, but not in any medical journals. If what said article contends is true, this would be ground shaking news to the neurology community. My colleagues in neurology who seem to be well read have never heard of this study. I would appreciate if you could provide a link to the original article.

Maya,
I appreciate your support, but I must tell you that I do not consider myself a "dissident," rather an animal lover with a different point of view. All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 18, 2007 09:46 PM

Christopher Cochran: I think that you should post elsewhere. You only post negative things, nothing constructive, and I'm really tired of hearing you brag about your cruelty to animals. I'm sure there are blogs with people who share your mindset that would be better-suited to your comments.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | December 18, 2007 10:53 PM

candy,
That was a good one! : ) Notice how he ALWAYS says more people will die from cat bites but NEVER says the TRUE number one disease people die from: heart disease, which by eating meat and animal-related foods, is one of the major contributing factors. According to ccmd, he knows better than the UNbiased credible cardiologists who keep warning the entire public!

rojo,
That is true, abx's can become ineffective or lessened to a certain degree over time with anyone due to the tolerance of the various strains of virus. However, my comment was from verified, highly publicized studies that were done, which had undoubtedly proven the consumption of meat from abx-treated animals did indeed lessen the chances of the over-all effectiveness of abx's in human animals. This is a very serious concern when people need surgery.
I wasn't telling of mad cow disease being in the long past. It is still very much a present concern, particularly in England - and Japan has been having an off and on rejection of importing beef from the U.S. for years because of a high suspicion of mad cow disease. About bird flu virus, thousands and thousands of fowl were killed in several countries within the past few years due to having been found with the aviary virus, which obviously the virus would not have been destroyed by cooking.
Also, a few years ago in my area, one person died and several became very ill, all diagnosed with E.coli from the unsanitary chicken they had eaten at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Well aware of this, people continued to eat there.

Posted by: Ariel | December 19, 2007 02:49 AM

Will the Steroid uproar continue now that Clemens is involved or like VICK and dog fighting, is PETA treating this as "A black thing"? Chicken fighting and dog fighting has been an issue in rural "WHITE Communities" for a long time...steroids even longer especially in white communities...we couldn't afford them!!! What happened to "fair and balanced"?

Posted by: Mike | December 19, 2007 06:54 AM

I'm not a vegetarian, but I thought about it. Now that I see naked women at all these protests, I might very well become one. At least women are showing their meat and hopefully at the next rally, I can show them mine. But I just got a couple issues with becoming vegan because ham, steak, ribs (especially ribs), and chicken are so delicious. Especially when it's tender and juicy. If I can get past these factors, i'll become vegan. But I'll stay posted to see when the next protest is and hopefully I can participate. It's almost as good as free softcore.

Posted by: Dex | December 19, 2007 10:33 AM

I would think people on this blog would like to encourage, not necessarily, anti-peta, but people who aren't on board yet to post comments and have people inform them on the issues.

Is an open discussion such a terrible thing if people are respectful to each other - and keeping in mind that yes, this is a peta blog?

Posted by: Kristina | December 19, 2007 10:37 AM

I can't understand for the life of me why some people here dedicate so much space on this blog to discussing me. This blog is about animal issues, not me. Do you guys have anything to say about animal issues? I am not worth your time and effort. I have learned a lot since visiting here, but I do not subscribe to the almost religious zealotry that some do just because PETA made a movie or I love my cat. Anyway ENOUGH about me and on to the animals.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 19, 2007 10:49 AM

Cochran has used the word "bigoted" MANY times on previous posts, directed at at least one particular blogger.

Cochran is only trying to sound "nicer" (even though those of us who have been on these blogs for a few months know that it is TOTALLY phoney) because he knows that Mars got booted off here for his constant pro-hunting comments, and that he might be next...

Cochran now says, "Who I am is irrelevant to animal rights. I do not wish to talk about me, rather animal issues, if you please." What a crock! He is always shoving his supposed credentials in our face, saying that he knows more about physiology, nutrition, etc, than any of us here, and that he does more for animals than any of us because he is into habitat preservation. F*** you!

I absolutely think that if Mars got booted off, Cochran should be next - he should not get to post here just because he uses better grammar than Mars did.

Posted by: Michele | December 19, 2007 03:10 PM

CCMD isnt always bad, so COOL IT.

Posted by: Caboose | December 19, 2007 03:58 PM

Michelle,
I am sorry you feel the way you do. I have decided not to address negative comments about me in kind. I still believe the discussion should pertain to animal issues, not me. Thanks for your understanding. When you make gross negative generalizations about rural southerners you do sound bigoted. I mean that constructively. All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 19, 2007 04:01 PM

ariel, I didn't mean to sound like I disagreed with abx resistance causes, just the concept that those who don't eat meat are immune. One would think feeding abx to broadscale animals would be a problem, but the studies I've had a quick look at are using words like "could" and "jury's still out".

On another side, the over presciption of abx to humans is possibly our greatest concern. Particularly when you look at infections that occur in hospitals.
Using abx for viral infections(useless against) doesn't help.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7527/1219?ehom

BSE does still exist, but the most prevelent number of cases were in the UK which this year had 46 cases diagnosed in cattle vs 35000/year in the mid-90s. If the downward trend continues at the same rate there should be none in the next couple of years. We'll wait and see.

Bird flu, the WHO says cooking does the trick. The birds are destroyed because handling them is a risk, especially faeces. Not to mention spread containment as fast as possible.

e-coli can be deadly. 70000 cases a year kill 60 people each year in the US. Cook you meat thoroughly, and wash your vegies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15162315/

Posted by: rojo | December 19, 2007 04:26 PM

Rojo,

In Canada we have not been faring as well as the U. S. (assuming all cases are being reported there). There have been 11 Canadian-born cattle with BSE to date.

Christopher,

I believed we agreed that the increase in weight of the Japanese girls was proportional to their height increase. Therefore obesity could not be a factor in their ever-earlier menarche. The huge increase in their dairy consumption has to be considered a prime suspect.

I didn't cite the Yale study in this particular forum, but this may be what you're looking for:

Manuelidis, Elias E. and Laura Manuelidis. "Suggested Links between
Different Types of Dementias: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Alzheimer
Disease, and Retroviral CNS Infections." _Alzheimer Disease and
Associated Disorders_ 2 (1989): 100-109.

I believe this refers to the University of Pittsburgh study:

Diagnosis of dementia: Clinicopathologic correlations

Francois Boller, MD, PhD; Oscar L. Lopez, MD; and John Moossy, MD

Article abstract--Based on 54 demented patients consecutively autopsied at the University of Pittsburgh, we studied the accuracy of clinicians in predicting the pathologic diagnosis. Thirty-nine patients (72.2%) had Alzheimer's disease, while 15 (27.7%) had other CNS diseases (four multi-infarct dementia; three Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; two thalamic and subcortical gliosis; three Parkinson's disease; one progressive supranuclear palsy; one Huntington's disease; and one unclassified). Two neurologists independently reviewed the clinical records of each patient without knowledge of the patient's identity or clinical or pathologic diagnoses; each clinician reached a clinical diagnosis based on criteria derived from those of the NINCDS/ADRDA. In 34 (63 %) cases both clinicians were correct, in nine (17%) one was correct, and in 11 (20%) neither was correct. These results show that in patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia, the etiology cannot be accurately predicted during life.

NEUROLOGY 1989;39:76-79

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 19, 2007 04:55 PM

Cochran,

You are in absolutely on the wrong website if you are looking for non-personal comments. I don't have to tell you this, but PETA is a very radical organization and thus attracts those types. Get used to the personal attacks, or you won't enjoy your time here.

I'll say it again, people commenting on this blog who actually care for animals should thank their lucky stars that non PETA folks join in the discussion. Do you really think that you can save any lives or save an animal from suffering if we only have hardcore PETA supporters here? Wake up - this is the chance you've been waiting for! Talk to them!!!!

As far as Chris stating his degree, I see nothing wrong with it. Personally I learned to care for 2 barns full of horses beginning when I was 4, housed stray cats in my mom's barn when I was 12, and worked in animal shelters for 10 years before I finally earned a degree.

Before, I was "Maya, the poor sap who can't afford a sandwich 'cause she works for minimum wage at a shetler" To "Maya, CVT." Now I'm in grad school. Pardon my French, but I worked really hard to earn that fucking degree and I'm gonna use the title. Get used to it.

I come to PETA's site because they are the only animal rights group on Earth that actually cares about the "lowlifes" - feral cats, sharks, lobsters, snails, you name it. On any other forum I'd be considered a nutjob for thinking that a lobster's life was precious. Not here. I'm very thankful for PETA, but I think we should all be more open minded and maybe a bit more thick-skinned. And of course, more respectful of each other!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Maya, Master's candidate, wildlife biology | December 19, 2007 04:55 PM

Ariel

boring boring boring

Posted by: Caboose | December 19, 2007 08:56 PM

Ana,
As always, TRUE comments! You are absolutely right on target about Cochran being less abrasive ONLY because he fears he might go the way of Mars. And I know that you were being conservative by describing the way he used to pound you with insults. And I often noticed that he got his kicks from insulting ONLY females.

Michele,
Excellent, excellent, post!
And you are SO right about Cochran being phoney as it is clearly expressed in his latest post. What a crock indeed!
I suspected he might try a new act (yet it's not really new: "Who? Me?"), but he didn't disappoint me with his latetest phoniness that's as transparent as clear glass.

Just comments for general reasons:
After all the past months of reveling in receiving enormous amounts of personal attention, all of a sudden, Cochran wants the focus off him. Yet he still had to throw in a dig, but in a milder form: before he used to often claim outright that we are "religious zealots." Now it's: "almost religious zealotry."
Actually, Mars was booted off because it was nothing more than a daily antagonist for months. Cochran has also been a daily antagonist for months. But no matter how seemingly intelligent(?) he tries to come across now, what ever he writes could very well be misconstrued as facts to newcomers due to him forever flashing his UNverified title, and we ALL know he his PROFOUNDLY biased: ANTI-animal rights' - and detests us and this movement with a deep, burning passion.
It's understandable that there are anti-views on here, BUT the MAJOR difference is Cochran's mission from day one was and still is to try to debunk our beliefs and any credible, UNbiased sources that enhances animal rights' (He even tried to debunk the highly acclaimed Dr. Neal Barnard, Pres. of the PCRM, and adjunct professor at George Washington U.! -who of course promotes a veg. diet and is actively engaged in anti-vivisection activities.) Otherwise, there are absolutely NO reasonably logic reasons why Cochran continues to post on here almost every day -especially with HIS same views that we have read beyond the point of ad nauseum, practically verbatum -and many of us addressed him accordingly.

"ENOUGH" of him already! I agree it's time for him to be booted off! As he even said himself when he was on the hot seat before: the ONLY thing he favors about PeTA is that he is allowed to express HIS (anti) views on this blog site (which have NOT changed one bit). So what he claimed he has learned on here, I have no clue.

Perhaps some of us "old timers" on here may recall Cochran initially telling us that he has so much respect (love) for the animals and his land, that he ONLY hunted sparingly on his well-kept property. Then shortly thereafter, he used to take delight in bragging to us about his many hunting travels. When the subject heading about lobsters was presented -how ironic(?)- Cochran just happened to return from a New England state, where he totally enjoyed sucking down the lobsters. BS'er or what.

Posted by: Ariel | December 20, 2007 09:56 AM

Mike,
I did not mean to imply that obesity is the cause of earlier menarche, rather increased percentage body fat. Body fat is a very important predictor of menstruation. As the diets in developed countries become more caloric (all calories, not just dairy) kids are becoming fatter, earlier and menarche ages are falling.
OK, now I get it. The study was not random samples of demented people. The studiers wanted to see if the neurologists could pick out the diseases. The BSE patients being three out of fifty-four patients were not randomly picked. They were loaded into the study to see if neurologists nearly twenty years ago could pick out the diseases. A lot has changed in twenty years, fortunately, but the prevalence and incidence of BSE in demented patients is most definitely not 5.6%. More like less than one percent. The study did not use a random cross section, rather diseases were placed to see if the neurologists could pick out the diseases by reading the medical chart on dead patients which would be tough, I admit. So don't worry Mike, I am still more likely to be hit by space junk than to get BSE. I can come up with a lot of reasons for not eating fattened beef and pork, but prion disease is still a weak argument.

Maya,
I am certainly not offended by the comments, and I'm not whining about them, rather they seem irrelevant and a waste of time. They tend to be no less caustic than that fellow who was banned, though. It seems he was banned for being purely antagonistic for the sake of antagonism, which is most definitely not my goal. If people with different notions never discuss those notions nothing will ever change. Screaming, cursing and insulting someone's heritage will not change anything. Rather it will serve to galvanize divergent opinions. All the best on your educational endeavors.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 20, 2007 10:36 AM

You're absolutely right, Maya. Posters here that present, in a reasonable manner, an opposing view, force a PETAphile to learn his/her stuff. This acquired knowledge only strengthens us, and our beliefs. And maybe someone sitting on the fence may decide to take up the animals' cause.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 20, 2007 12:57 PM

Ariel,
You are obviously very commendably passionate about the plight of animals. You may continue to write long articles regarding how much you disdain me, but I have decided to try and refrain from addressing personal criticism by reciprocating. I have used rudeness and petty comments in the past and I have elected to try my best to avoid them in the future. Critical comments are expected, but I do not wish or intend to be pejorative. I will try to approach discussion here with honesty and integrity because these issues are also very important to me, even though I have different opinions than most here about said issues. I hope that in the future you could direct your comments to the issues of animals and avoid posting solely for bashing me or anyone else. As you, yourself have pointed out, this blog is about animals. This is not my blog, nor is it about me. All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | December 20, 2007 04:33 PM

Mike

Sitting on a fence is uncomfortable, Id rather sit on a chair, in the middle of a WWI battleground, inside a Pillbox, eating rice krispies, while watching the 2 sides fight (Soooooo boring, watching snails race is like Half-Life 2 compared to it) Thats how much I dont like sitting on a fence.

Posted by: Caboose | December 20, 2007 07:11 PM

Cochran and Maya,

The reasons why you two click together so well is because both of you are from the same mold. Both of you are egotistical, self-glorifying, phonies, hypocrits, and REAL BS'ers.
Both of you shove your ALLEDGED degrees down people's throats, and talk down to people as if you are SO superior.
Also, NEITHER of you were authorized by PeTA to comment as officials on this blog site, as you think you are. And NEITHER of you are animal rights' activists.

Oh, the great Maya, who loves to often negatively criticize Ingrid - the co-founder/Pres. of PeTA for 25 years, and who has done more for a/r's in one year than Maya could ever do in a lifetime. The great Maya, who is always giving her "authoritative" approval about PeTA IF Maya finds it to HER favor, OR HER disapproval as if the great Maya could do much better. Oh but never, ever disagree with the great Maya because she'll get beside herself and give wise-cracks. (what was that about being respectful to each other?) *see Maya's own comments.

Anyway, don't turn to Cochran for that answer. Cochran himself stated TO MAYA that he knows he's not well-liked on this blog site - because of his nasty, cocky, egotistical arrogance. But now he's hiding behind Maya's skirt, LYING in plain black and white, and throwing bull just to sway people away from the TRUTH about animal rights' And Maya is his cheerleader because she is not an a/r/a either - just likes to play authority figure about something that she does not have a deep commitment to because she is too self-focused. Therefore, to her, a/r/a's are "radical." *see her comment (her meaning to be derogatory, which PROVES she is NOT knowlegable about the a/r's movement)
Yes, two people -both alike - have love for self-glorification and playing authority figures, except Cochran is staunchly against a/r's and is deceptively influencing people, especially newcomers - and condescending Maya is NOT an a/r's activist. And obviously their great (alledged) degrees taught them NOTHING about discretion or being selfless.

Cochran,
Tell the TRUTH about your goal, which you mentioned a few times when you were on the hot seat. YOU said that your goal is to tell us YOUR views, for us to consider the "other side," so that we won't be so "narrow-minded" and to "change" our "zealous religious beliefs"(aka animal rights' beliefs) AND because you were upset about (alledged) "a/r/a's banging pots and pans near your property" because they scared away the animals that you wanted to hunt. (quotes: actual words)
Tell the truth how many times you changed the focus away from animals and a/r's when you whined and mocked activists. Tell the truth about how many times you are giving medical advice/opinion as UNverified doctor - on a blog site of all places!

Mike Q,
Since you had daily discussions with Cochran ever since the summer, please tell this blog site how far you have gotten in changing any of Cochran's views.
And if you don't mind, would you please inform this forum how many times SO MANY a/r/a's -each time he commented- repeatedly had to defend a/r's due to his VERY vicious comments, to the point where he became the main focus under each heading.

Caboose,
Boring? Sorry, but I'm not here to entertain you or anybody else.
Now I'll give you SOME critique on your comments:
1. nobody knows what your talking about most of the time (probably because you don't know either), therefore, you have been ignored because you come across as being an irrational, unintelligible juvenile.
2. your comments are often solely about guns, therefore you are on the wrong blog site, and are of NO interest to any a/r/a.
3. you have yet to offer anything of importance to this ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site.

The reason I am boring to you is because I take the suffering and torture of animals to be a VERY SERIOUS cause, and because I am mature enough to know that. So until/if you ever become mature, why don't you hang out on a blog site that caters to juvenile nonsense. You'll be a hit!

*****************
Call this personal attacks, call it what you will, but this is an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site -which is a VERY SERIOUS movement -and there is NO room in this movement for self-glorification, BS'ers, and nonsense. Try calling my comments: the
TRUTH!

Posted by: Ariel | December 21, 2007 06:21 PM

Jeez Ariel, cool it, its not my fault you cant understand "R" , "U" , condensed phrases, and leetspeak.

Posted by: Caboose | December 21, 2007 07:23 PM

Ariel, your comments were blunt, but as you say, the TRUTH! As always, it is good to see you here.

There have been many close-minded people on these blogs over the past year, and Cochran is just one of them. Notice how lately he has been spewing out long-winded comments filled with ultra-technical scientific terms, presumably to sound oh-so-educated?? NOT impressing us dude! Caboose sometimes seems to have a clue about PETA and its supporters, but you're right, mainly he is incomprehensible or only talking about "firearms" (don't call them guns, he will criticize you!!!!!). Rojo seems to be one of the very few "regulars" who does not seem to post comments just for the sake of causing trouble, and may be more open-minded than many of the other "anti's" here.

Ariel, to you and all of the other wonderful, RADICAL animal rights people here, seasons greetings, happy holidays, and Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Michele | December 21, 2007 10:01 PM

Ariel, you are so funny.

I know you are very, very jealous of anyone who speaks with authority, and is younger than you.

I know, honey, that's it's frustrating being an "animal lover" at 63 years old and having no formal training. But if you chose to be an alleged nurse, that was your choice. It's kinda too late for you to change careers.

I'm not sure what you mean by being "authorized"...Jack has always willingly posted my comments, it's not as though I "hacked" them in. You should complain to Jack or PETA if you don't like me being here.

I have never, ever claimed to represent or be an employee of PETA. I'm representing myself, that's all. If Jack wants a copy of my vet tech and wildlife rehabber certificate, I will happily send him a copy. As for you, you obviously have too much time on your hands and I'd worry you'd burn down my house if I showed it to you.

Which brings me to my next point: You, Ariel, are responsible for animals suffering because you try to drive away people who may be testing the waters here and may subconciously want to know if their treatment of animals is okay. When you rail against them, you kill any chance of helping them treat animals better.

It's a shame you've made so many animals suffer.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | December 22, 2007 11:07 AM

Ps to Ariel,

I have to admit, your comments made me giggle. I'm not kidding, I had a good laugh. For several reasons.

For one, you made some good points. I can contradict myself, and be disrespectful. For that I apologize. Of course, you would never be accused of showing respect to those to whom you are commenting.

I hope, with all my heart Ariel, that you do stay around this blog for a very long time indeed. Your comments are, more often than not, quite extensive, detailed and entertaining.

Peace!
Maya

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | December 22, 2007 11:46 AM

Maya, Ariel -

You are bickering about what degrees you have and how mature you are?

I'v all ready become disenfranchised with this blog site. I wish I hadn't ... but it seems so quickly tha it becomes about who is right and not about the animals ... someone prove me wrong .,.

Posted by: Kristina | December 24, 2007 01:48 AM

Very well said, Kristina.

I try to be calm and objective 100 percent of the time, but I am a human being and I do react once in a while. My apologies.

Let's face it, sticking to the facts is a lot less juicy than petty bickering. That's why trashy Britteny Spears stories sell so well. So the temptation to let the conversation disintegrate into nastiness is always present, especially in light of personal attacks.

However, as I said, it's really trashy and I'm not into that. I certainly can't vouch for anyone else here, but I far prefer rational debate, scientific facts and conversation. I for one look forward to more of that, Kristina. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | December 24, 2007 02:27 PM

Maya -

Thank you once again. As I said in another post, I was about to write this whole blog off, but I can't.

My whole point was to meet people (such as yourself) who were moderate (well, seemingly) to help me educate myself on this topic.

Personal attacks don't bode well for either side. I have to say, I would be more than happy to unleash my nasty tongue upon some people here - but yes ... that is not the point ,,, I hope ALL people on this blog realize that.

Posted by: Kristina | December 30, 2007 02:32 AM